The ‘liberal’ drive to exclude pro-lifers from public life in Canada

Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has insisted pro-lifers can no longer stand for his party

Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and son of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prime minister from 1968 to 1984, recently attempted to further entrench Canada’s abortion extremism with a prohibition on pro-life candidates running for his party. Surprisingly, his policy has attracted nearly universal condemnation, including strong criticism by two of Canada’s senior archbishops.
Canada’s abortion politics are unique. There is no law on abortion at all, so an extreme abortion licence – any time for any reason – prevails.

Over decades, public opinion surveys reflect that a majority of Canadians would like to see some restrictions on abortion, with a small minority preferring total prohibition. Nevertheless, the substance of the issue has not been raised in the federal parliament for more than 25 years. The prime minister, Stephen Harper, is emphatic that his government will not “re-open” the abortion debate, even going so far as to dissuade his members of parliament from advancing private member’s bills on the issue. The opposition leaders, Thomas Mulcair of the New Democratic Party and Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party, both explicitly favour Canada’s extreme abortion licence. An odd consensus therefore prevails. Canada’s legal situation is similar to that in the United States, but without any of the American debate or efforts to change the status quo. Canadians do not support the current abortion regime, but are apparently tolerant of the consensus on not doing anything about it.

On the eve of the annual March for Life in Ottawa, Trudeau announced that all candidates for the Liberal Party in the 2015 federal election would have to pledge to vote against any restrictions on Canada’s unlimited abortion regime. There are only a few pro-life MPs in the Liberals’ small 34-member caucus, and the party has been resolutely in favour of abortion rights for more than a generation. Practically, the new policy would have little effect on the absence of an abortion law in Canada, but it did represent a departure from previous Liberal practice, in which pro-life MPs were tolerated, even if isolated.

The political advantage that Trudeau was trying to achieve was therefore unclear. The political blowback was immediate. Leading pro-choice female columnists at socially liberal Canadian papers blasted Trudeau for being intolerant of dissenting views. Political opponents and a wide array of commentators decried the policy, and several senior Liberals publicly disagreed with Trudeau, which itself is uncommon under Canada’s unusually strict party discipline. One of the most devastating attacks came from Clifford Lincoln, an immensely respected former Liberal member of both the Quebec legislature and the federal Parliament. “In the caucuses in which I served, diversity of views and positions on ‘conscience’ issues varied sometimes widely,” Lincoln wrote. “I have no doubt certain potential candidates with extreme views were quietly dissuaded from running, but there were never any formal edicts or prohibitions regarding ‘conscience’ or other positions. So [Trudeau’s] decision is a fundamental departure from Liberal Party tradition. It is doctrinaire, judgmental and, in my modest view, the antithesis of liberalism.”

The response from the Catholic bishops was equally forthright. Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto wrote an open letter to Trudeau, inviting him to “reconsider” his position, as it made it impossible for faithful Catholics to run for his party. Collins wryly noted that Trudeau’s edict would disqualify Pope Francis from becoming a Liberal candidate. The archdiocese of Toronto reported that they had never received as many responses on any other issue as they had on the Trudeau letter, and almost all of them were favourable.

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa, the national capital, pointed out that Trudeau’s position, despite his claims to be a practising Catholic, is simply not compatible with the Catholic faith. “A person who takes a position in contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the value and dignity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of a natural death, and persists in this belief, is not in communion with the Church’s values and teaching, which we believe faithfully transmit for today the teachings of Christ,” Prendergast wrote in a statement sent to all his parishes.

Stung by the near-universal rejection of his edict, Trudeau interrupted the first bank holiday weekend of the summer to issue a “personal reflection”. He did not recant.

As it is curious for the leader of the third party in parliament to specify groups of voters that are not welcome in his party, Trudeau was eager to ensure pro-life citizens that they are most welcome to vote Liberal, to volunteer for the party and donate to it. As for their pro-life views, they are to work on reconciling (resigning?) themselves to the fact that their view will be forbidden from being spoken inside the Liberal caucus. “I know [my policy] has troubled some Canadians, and come as welcome words to others,” Trudeau wrote. “To those it has troubled: I understand. I empathise. And I care deeply that you are working hard to reconcile your beliefs with this party policy.”

Notwithstanding Trudeau’s deep caring, to hold that Canadian laws should reflect a pro-life position is not easily reconciled with his position that pro-life positions are a disqualification from serving in parliament. His proposed reconciliation was breathtaking: he invited pro-life Liberals to sign a petition in favour of unlimited abortion rights.

Pro-life Canadians welcomed the strong secular, Catholic and even Liberal Party opposition to Trudeau’s edict. Yet he shows no sign of backing down from it, and therefore it not only entrenches Canada’s extreme abortion regime, but takes a step toward the exclusion from public life of anyone who questions it. Trudeau may suffer a political price from his prohibition on pro-life Canadians. But they remain prohibited in his party.
Fr Raymond J de Souza is a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and editor-in-chief of Convivium magazine

This article was first published in the print edition of The Catholic Herald (30/5/14)

COMMENT POLICY

The Catholic Herald comment guidelinesAt The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.We implement a strict moderation policy and reserve the right to delete comments that we believe contravene our guidelines. Here are a few key things to bear in mind when commenting…

•Do not make personal attacks on writers or fellow commenters – respond only to their arguments.•Comments that are deemed offensive, aggressive or off topic will be deleted.•Unsubstantiated claims and accusations about individuals or organisations will be deleted.•Keep comments concise. Comments of great length may be deleted.•We try to vet every comment, however if you would like to alert us to a particular posting please use the ‘Report’ button.Thank you for your co-operation,The Catholic Herald editorial team

Firstly you confirm what I am saying about political parties. I don’t approve of what Trudeau is doing, and think it politically unwise, but defend his right to do it. Similarly your Church, whatever it’s different organisational difference, is entitled to decide who can be a member.

I complain not about your Church, but about those posters on here who are hypocritically describing what Trudeau has done in such aggressive terms, primarily because they are passionately against anyone who takes a “pro-choice” stance.

You seem to think that because your Church is not founded on democratic principles that this makes a difference. I don’t.

Hennergogs

I agree that it should be opposed on the basis of grave moral wrong but it is contrary to Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (An awful lot of which could be lifted straight from Catholic Theology centuries ago). If he claims that his conscience considers something as a grave moral wrong then he needs to be able to justify it (which he cannot) and he surely is still denying freedom of conscience to party members? Isn’t he saying that only his conscience is valid and no others are?
Personally I would avoid speculation about what-ifs but just as an aside the excommunication argument is a bit of a dead-duck because there is no temporal power exercised over the people concerned and nothing to stop them carrying out acts of charity or mercy or even attending religious services. This is very different to banning someone in the political domain. Moreover they declare themselves to be Catholic

Dave

“it is contrary to Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights”
It is simply not contrary to Article 18 in any legal sense. No one has a human right to be a candidate of any political party they want, as candidates have to represent a party platform. Political parties are perfectly free to require their members to vote pro-choice or pro-life. Conscientious objectors are free to join other parties. This is protected by the same freedom which legally guarantees the Catholic Church the right to expel or deny services to private individuals who are pro-abortion.

“and he surely is still denying freedom of conscience to party members?”
Not at all, they are free to follow their consciences and leave the Liberal Party.

“Isn’t he saying that only his conscience is valid and no others are?”
Of course he is! He has said explicitly many times that a woman’s right to choose is a Charter right, meaning he wants it protected in the Constitution of Canada, enshrined as a human right, where no legislation can touch it. He is saying that an appeal to conscience cannot justify something objectively morally wrong and a pro-life position is objectively morally wrong. Of course the Catholic Church also says its pro-life position is the only one that is valid and that Trudeau’s position is gravely wrong. Both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Catholic Church have the right require members to support their positions.

Hennergogs

It is contrary to Article 18 as abortion is a issue of conscience and his actions deny that freedom. The party is free to campaign on that issue and some others do so we have the situation where the chair of the parliamentary pro-life committee in the UK is a Labour MP last time I checked.
Saying they are free to leave the liberal party is a LOL! as it doesn’t address the question at all. I think Christians are allowed to leave some countries at any time (and are actively encouraged to so).
If the Liberal party claims it has the right to ignore/overturn the UN charter then anything is possible.
That’s why these issues cut to the heart of whether it means anything to be human.
You still seem to mix-up spiritual with secular which I’m guessing is to pretend that there’s some kind of parallel when in fact this is not comparing like for like.

Dave

“I think Christians are allowed to leave some countries at any time (and are actively encouraged to so).”
Some members of my family had to leave Cuba because of their beliefs at great risk and would have been in prison if they were even caught talking about leaving. And some were caught, and consequently imprisoned and tortured. Having to leave the Liberal Party of Canada is hardly the same thing as having to flee your country.

“If the Liberal party claims it has the right to ignore/overturn the UN charter then anything is possible. That’s why these issues cut to the heart of whether it means anything to be human.”
It is you are confusing the secular and spiritual. The Liberal Party has not overturned the UN charter. Regardless of its origins, article 18 is a legal issue: it is simply fanciful to suggest that what Trudeau has done legally violates that article. He hasn’t and no one even pretends to imagine challenging him on that basis. Perhaps someone you trust with legal expertise could explain that to you. You cannot get in trouble (in the courts) for violating the ‘spiritual’ meaning of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The simply fact is, yes the Liberal Party (and the NDP in Canada already does the same thing) is legally entitled to say that if you are pro-life you cannot be a candidate. If you want to say that the Liberal Party has violated moral law in a spiritual sense, then it is to moral law that one should appeal, not freedom of conscience, which as a legal right does not apply. But it is a little odd to complain that an anti-life party does not allow members to join it and vote against abortion—what sort of Catholic wants to belong to an anti-life party anyways? It is like complaining that you want to work for Planned Parenthood as long as you can appeal to your conscience and not carry out the abortions yourself.

Hennergogs

Canada is a signatory to the UN Declaration is it not? So it’s hardly fanciful and legalese doesn’t really cut it either as I’m quite sure that where there’s a will there’s a way for a political party to wriggle. We both agree that the Liberal Party is denying that any conscience other than their own is valid which sums-up the situation well-enough as far as I’m concerned.
What Trudeau has failed to establish is the “grave moral wrong”.
But just FYI, some well-funded groups have tried via the EU to talk about abortion in terms of human rights. They have lost each time. It won’t stop them trying again but at present that is frimly closed and it’s difficult to see how it can tackled from their perspective.

Dave

Canada is a signatory to the UN Declaration is it not?
You are welcome to research it. Freedom of conscience does not legally prevent political parties from refusing pro-life candidates. However, objectionable you may find that, it is simply the case.

“We both agree that the Liberal Party is denying that any conscience other than their own “
Yes, though since I would be perfectly happy accepting a political party that insisted on its candidates being pro-life and thus deny pro-abortion candidates a conscientious objection so I am not going to complain about it on the grounds of freedom of conscience.

Cassandra

Actually ! Rome did not recognize the Pavelic regime. unlike JPII harried recognition of Croatia.If that fact had been taken into account, there would have been no Balkan Wars in the 1990’s.
Unfortunately USA and the European Union also chose to ignore the plight of the Serbs.